61–70 of 125 posts
Is this only happening in the United States? How frequently is this happening in other countries?
Here's what I've found so far:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2016-06-27/map-here-are-countrie...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreac…
The right wing people seem to be ok with a dictatorship if it gets them what they want. Left wingers are less likely to open guns so this point is moot. Also what chance do these guns have against the army's artillery.
And just FYI, most government murder of their own citizens has been done by left wing governments in the last century.
Want to guess what Nazi was short for? National Socialist Party.
Want to guess the first step of murderous left wing governments? Gun confiscation.
Am I saying that the US government is going to murder citizens (lol, already does it)? No. But don't make it easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreac…
> (hello UK!) Brit here. What are you on about?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Certainly free speech can and does lead to violence. Should we also require a license for that? Would be interested to hear how that is rationalized.
> 9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Your questions point to the answer: city and state laws are far less effective when someone can bypass them by taking a short drive. > Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Note that in this case, the freedom in question starts with “well-regulated” and that…
"Several past studies have found that media reports of suicides and homicides appear to subsequently increase the incidence of similar events in the community, apparently due to the coverage planting the seeds of ideation in at-risk individuals to commit similar acts" I've suggested before on HN that active shooter drills- which are apparently widespread now in US schools- might be themselves a source of contagion. B…
This is a fine line to tread, without a doubt. It’s the same “if we don’t give them the idea, maybe some of them won’t think of it otherwise” thinking that has been a theme throughout the history of education. Similar thought process to sex education, leaving out certain anti-government parts of history, etc. (and those are just examples in the US, let alone stricter education systems).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is possible to radicalise anyone. It is not about politics at all. You can convince even the hippiest left-wing peaceniks into terrible activity. All you have to do is fixate the subject on either side of a dialectic argument involving force, violence, duress .. injustice. Or even better, all of the above. The root of all radicalisation is individual responsibility.
Do you have evidence of a number of "leftist" activists that have approximately the same count of murders as right-wingers/white supremacists have? I mean, something to balance and show some equivalence? You don't. Because the single biggest real threat to any US citizen today is an other US citizen that can grab a weapon at will. And it happens that in the overwhelming number of cases, the person that becomes a mass…
So? The world knows that American's are okay with violence. We haven't been hiding ourselves from its victims, or at least .. a big portion of the world sees and knows all too well, what most American's don't or won't: a principle product of the USA is violence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the main consideration I give to gun ownership. When there is a tyrannical government in power who is violently oppressing the people, would any new laws eventually prevent me from walking up to an agent of the tyrannical state and shoot them in the head? i.e., would it be possible to have localized insurrections against government? Make no mistake, it is this fear that prevents most governments from overreac…
In Afgahnistan, AK-47s are so common that the US has air-striked weddings due to celebratory gunfire. Which should probably tell you something about the assumption about the accessibility of the guns, and the likely outcome of your fantasy there...
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/pakistan/pakistan-to-joi...
https://apnews.com/c77e9e7ec5b1490ab7394f0dcc64588b
Whether you like it or not, the US lost in Vietnam, they lost in Afghanistan though I haven't kept up on Iraq, reading a few books about the topic showed me that the main impetus for leaving is that it is hopeless for the US to "win".
Edit: IF memory serves, this was the plan laid out by Bin Laden. The guy even put it on video and the stupid US government followed through. Unfortunately, web bitrot has made it difficult to find the relevant articles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 9 states have magazine limits. Does it make a substantive difference? If not, then what is the rationalization to make it Federal? Your questions point to the answer: city and state laws are far less effective when someone can bypass them by taking a short drive. > Which other Bill of Rights freedoms require a license to practice? Note that in this case, the freedom in question starts with “well-regulated” and that…
You don't even need firearms to inflict mass causalities, so magazine limits are political theater imho. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/19/japan-arson-attack-on-anime-... Firearm restrictions also inhibits civilians from resisting state violence if it ever came down to it. I've heard the tanks/planes arguments, but if those are so effective why are we still in Afghanistan? (hint: they have firearms)
Is this only happening in the United States? How frequently is this happening in other countries?
Little in comparison.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shooting#North_America > United States
"The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country in the post-WWII era. (five references)"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> orders of magnitude more deadly than those originally considered by the Bill of Rights They had small bore cannons back then, you could legally own those under the 2nd amendment. You're telling me that artillery, which can be fired at effect 1000 yards away from it's intended target, is less deadly than a semi-automatic rifle?
As the US allows private guns to prevent government tyranny, in people's views wouldn't it also be right to allow privately owned cannons, assorted artillery, explosives and the entire military toolkit (so long as they could pay for it)? After all it would greatly help civilians throw off oppression, and that's what it's all about. This isn't sark, just pointing out a reasonable logical destination for the reasoning.
what if they can't pay for it? are gun manufacturers now violating the "equal protection" clause? they're denying people the ability to exercise a constitutional amendment simply based on their ability to pay.